Oct 16, 2025 Redevelopment Agency

[Call to Order]

[00:00:08]

WELCOME TO THE MEETING OF IDAHO FALLS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16TH, 2025.

[1. ACTION ITEM: Modifications, Additions, Changes to the Agenda]

[2. ACTION ITEM: Approval of Minutes: September 18, 2025]

[3. ACTION ITEM: Approval of Expenditures and Finance Report]

[4. ACTION ITEM: Approve Rudd & Company Audit Engagement Letter]

IT'S A STANDARD LETTER WE GET EVERY YEAR FROM THEM, SO. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. AND I KNOW THAT SHE'S GOT THE ESTIMATE OF WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST. SO YES. HOW DOES IT COMPARE TO LAST YEAR'S. IT WAS I DON'T I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. SORRY I COULD COVER THAT A FEW MONTHS AGO. IT, IT IT WAS HIGHER 15,500. YEAH. THERE WE GO. I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIND THAT SO IT DIDN'T INCREASE. THE QUESTIONS. MEGAN, DO YOU REMEMBER OUR DISCUSSION ON THAT? DOES ANYBODY. WE DISCUSSED THIS ONCE BEFORE. AND WE LOOKED AT THE VALUES. YEAH.

MY MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THE ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT BROUGHT FORWARD THAT WAS THE CITY GOING TO MAKE A CHANGE IN ITS AUDIT. CONTRACT. AND I THOUGHT THE RECOMMENDATION WAS FROM CASSIE WAS TO PROCEED WITH RETAINING RED. RIGHT. AND I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS LAST YEAR.

THIS ONE SAYS 15,500 SEEMS LIKE IT. NO, I DON'T WANT TO SPECULATE. I THINK THAT IS THE INCREASED NUMBER FROM FROM WHERE WE WERE LAST YEAR. OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RED AND COMPANY ENGAGEMENT? I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION. I'LL SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT MOTION PASSES. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. WE

[5. ACTION ITEM: Jackson Hole Junction Review of Owner Participation Agreement]

[00:05:03]

FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS THE JACKSON HOLE JUNCTION REVIEW OF OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT.

I UNDERSTAND JACKSON HOLE JUNCTION HAS RETAINED BRAD KRAMER TO ASSIST THEM IN ANALYZING THIS. AND BRAD HAS PREPARED THIS EXCELLENT ANALYSIS TO HELP US THAN WE RECEIVED. SO GREG, DO YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH THAT FOR US? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY JUST TO WALK THROUGH THE THE REQUESTS FROM JACKSON HOLE JUNCTION. AS YOU ALREADY MENTIONED, THEY RETAINED ME EARLIER THIS YEAR TO LOOK AT SOME CONCERNS THAT THEY HAD WITH THE AMOUNT OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUE THAT WAS COMING IN. AND JUST TO PROJECT WHAT THE OUTLOOK WAS FOR BEING ABLE TO HAVE THE $4 MILLION THAT WAS IN THE LPA PAID BACK BY THE END OF THE DISTRICT, WHICH IS 2030. SO WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS JUST KIND OF GO OVER THE DATA THAT I, THAT I LOOKED AT QUICKLY. A LITTLE BRIEF HISTORY OF JACKSONVILLE JUNCTION, THE REQUEST AND WHAT THE CASH FLOW LOOKS LIKE. IF YOU WERE TO MAKE THE REQUESTED CHANGES TO THE OPA. SO JUST AS A AS A QUICK REMINDER, JACKSONVILLE JUNCTION WAS ORIGINALLY STARTED IN TERMS OF THE REVIEW IN 2016. AND YOU SEE THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THAT PHOTO, THE AERIAL OF WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE THEN AND THEN ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE YOU SEE 2025. THIS HAS BEEN A GOOD SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT. THE IT WAS CONTROVERSIAL AMONGST THE BOARD AT THE TIME IT WAS APPROVED, BECAUSE IT WAS SORT OF THE AGENCY'S FIRST. PROJECT THAT WAS ON WHAT WAS CONSIDERED GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT. BUT THE PRIMARY QUALIFYING FACTOR AND FEATURE OF THE SITE WAS SHALLOW BASALT, AND THEY CONTINUED TO FIND AND BLAST BASALT AS THEY BUILD. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THAT PHOTO ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, WHAT I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT IS THAT THERE'S ONLY A FEW DEVELOPABLE SITES LEFT TO DATE. IT'S ADDED ROUGHLY $75 MILLION IN INCREMENT VALUE. IT'S BEEN A SUCCESSFUL PROJECT AT THE GATEWAY OF THE CITY, BUT ONE OF THE THE MAJOR CHALLENGES IN TERMS OF THE OF THE OPA. AND I'LL GO OVER THOSE DETAILS ON THE NEXT SLIDE, IS THAT. THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC DID A FEW THINGS THAT WERE REALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PROGRESS OF THE DEVELOPMENT. ONE WAS, YOU MAY RECALL, IF YOU WERE FOLLOWING THIS BACK THEN, IS THAT SHOWBIZ CINEMAS HAD COMMITTED TO BUILD ON THE SITE, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN A SOLID ANCHOR. IT WAS GOING TO BRING OTHER SUPPORTIVE BUSINESSES AROUND IT, AND WITH THE WITH THE PANDEMIC AND A LOT OF CONCERN AND FEAR ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT ASSEMBLY PLACES LIKE THEATERS WERE EVER GOING TO MAKE A COMEBACK OR HOW LONG IT WOULD BE BEFORE THEY MADE A COMEBACK, THAT BUSINESS WENT AWAY, AND IT LEFT JACKSONVILLE JUNCTION TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PIVOT AND WORK IN A NEW WORLD AND MARKET. AND I BRING THAT UP PARTLY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE DEVELOPER IS WELL AWARE THAT OPA SAYS IN THE LANGUAGE ABOUT THE $4 MILLION PAYOUT, THERE IS RISK THAT IT MAY NOT BE PAID BACK. AND THAT RISK TYPICALLY COMES WITH ADJUSTMENTS IN MARKET, JUST THE NORMAL FLUCTUATIONS THAT HAPPEN AT NORMAL RISK IN DEVELOPMENT.

BUT NOBODY REALLY PLANS FOR GLOBAL PANDEMIC AND WHAT IT DID TO PRICES OF MATERIALS AND LABOR. AND WE CONTINUE TO SEE THOSE EFFECTS. AND SO THAT'S A THAT'S A PRETTY UNUSUAL AND UNIQUE PROBLEM TO BE FACING. JUST LOOKING AT THE OPA, JUST THE SUMMARY OF WHAT THE CURRENT OPA LOOKS LIKE. THIS WAS LIMITED TO BE A 14 YEAR PLAN STARTING IN 2017 AND TERMINATING IN 2030. THERE WAS A $4 MILLION MAX PAYOUT PUT ON THAT OPA. SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES WERE GOING TO BE, AND THEY HAVE EXCEEDED $4 MILLION, THAT WAS THE CAP THAT THAT OPA SAYS THAT IT WILL COLLECT 10% OF TIFF. EXCUSE ME. ACTUALLY IT SAYS 20.

THAT'S A TYPO. IF IT WILL COLLECT 20% OF TIFF REVENUES UP TO $50,000 ANNUALLY, 2025, I BELIEVE, IS THE FIRST YEAR THAT THE AGENCY ACTUALLY COLLECTED THE FULL $50,000. BUT AS YOU SAW IN THE FINANCE REPORT, THERE HAS BEEN FUNDS ACCRUING SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THIS DISTRICT. AND THEN, AS I UNDERSTAND THE THE AGREEMENT AND AND MEGAN MAY CORRECT ME ON THIS, BUT AS I READ IT, THE IRA WOULD COLLECT 100% OF THE FINAL YEAR OF REVENUES. THE DISTRICT CLOSES IN 2030, BUT REVENUES FOR 2030 WON'T BE RECEIVED UNTIL 2031. THE WAY THE OPA READS, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, SUGGESTS THAT THIS AGREEMENT TERMINATES IN 2030. AND SO

[00:10:08]

THERE'LL BE A COUPLE MORE ANOTHER BUILDING OR TWO HITTING IN 2026 THAT WILL CONTINUE TO BOOST REVENUES THERE. AND THAT REPRESENTS ABOUT HALF OF THE CURRENT INCREMENT. SO THAT'S A REALLY BIG DEAL. IT'S A REALLY BIG BOOST TO WHAT THOSE OPA PAYMENTS WOULD BE. WE DID FIND WE WORKED WITH THE ASSESSORS. THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME OF THE DATA. THERE WERE SOME REPORTS THAT WERE SHOWING SOME VALUATIONS THAT WERE OFF. I WORKED WITH THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE. THEY WERE THEY WERE GREAT. THEY BROUGHT IN A WHOLE TEAM TO MEET WITH US, WITH SOME OF THE CONCERNS ADJUSTED, A COUPLE OF THEM ON THE SPOT. SO THOSE HAVE ALL BEEN RESOLVED AND PROBABLY PROBABLY WERE NOT A VERY BIG CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO ANY LACK OF REVENUE. AND THEN TOWARDS THE END, WE DID ALSO DISCOVER SOME DELINQUENT TAXES. NOW YOU CAN'T CONTROL THAT. DEVELOPER CAN'T CONTROL THAT. BUT THOSE THAT'S BEEN RESOLVED AND WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS RESOLUTION TO GET THOSE PAID. SO WE WANTED TO WAIT UNTIL OCTOBER BEFORE WE APPROACHED YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THE OPA PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT MODEL THAT I'M ABOUT TO SCREEN AND MAKE SURE IT WAS AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW. SO IT HAD ALL OF THE 2025 REVENUES. SO IT'S A MUCH MORE POSITIVE OUTLOOK TODAY THAN IT WAS IN 2025 OR EARLY 2025 WHEN I WAS FIRST LOOKING AT THIS, BECAUSE OF SOME OF THOSE DATA POINTS THAT WE FOUND LATER ON, FOR EXAMPLE, THE THE APARTMENTS HAD AN EXTRA $10 MILLION WORTH OF VALUE THAT HADN'T SHOWN UP YET IN THE DATA THAT WE HAD. SO THAT WAS A REALLY BIG BOOST. SO INITIALLY WE SAID, OH, YOU KNOW WHAT? IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY CLOSE. I'M NOT SURE YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE IT BY 2030. SO LET'S LET'S SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO AMEND THAT. OPA. NOW INSERTING ALL THAT DATA, I THINK THERE'S A REALLY HIGH PROBABILITY THAT THIS GETS PAID OFF IN 2030. YOU CAN SEE THAT FINAL PAYMENT THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED WOULD BE SOMEWHERE NORTH OF $400,000. AND YOU ALSO SEE THAT THE AGENCY WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO ABOUT $1.45 MILLION FOR OTHER ELIGIBLE PROJECTS. THE CHALLENGE, THOUGH, AND THE REASON THAT WE'RE STILL HERE ASKING FOR SOME AMENDMENTS TO THE OPA, IS THAT THERE'S BEEN SO MUCH VOLATILITY WITH WHAT VALUATIONS ARE DOING, WHAT LEVEES ARE DOING. THIS IS A CONSERVATIVE MODEL WHERE CASH FLOW MIGHT BE MUCH BETTER. IT MIGHT BE FLAT. WE JUST DON'T KNOW FOR SURE FOR CERTAIN. AND SO SORT OF AS A I WOULD SAY A BIT OF AN INSURANCE AND MAKING SURE THAT THAT $4 MILLION GETS PAID BACK IS REALLY WHAT WE'D LIKE TO REQUEST WITH THE WITH THESE CHANGES. AND WE ONLY HAVE THREE THAT WE'D LIKE TO ASK YOU TO CONSIDER FIRST. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONFUSION IN YOUR PACKET. THE OPA WAS A SEPARATE LINK FROM THE MEMO, SO I'LL JUST I'LL JUST NOT READ THIS. BUT THE FIRST ONE IS IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT PAGE 12, WHICH IS EXCUSE ME, BACK THAT UP. PAGE SEVEN G2 IS I HAD YOU CHANGE THOSE AND I CHANGED THEM.

I NEED SOMEBODY TO CHECK MY WORK. SO THESE ARE THE RIGHT SECTIONS. I THINK I JUST HAVE THE LANGUAGE MIXED UP. SO ONE IS IF BRAD, CAN I NOTE THAT IT APPEARS THAT THE OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT IS ATTACHED TO THE BACK OF THE RESOLUTION? YES. RATHER THAN THE BACK OF FRED'S MIDDLE. AND YOU DO HAVE THEM REFERENCE CORRECTLY. IT'S ON PAGE SEVEN AS G2. AND WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE? YEAH, I JUST HAVE I THINK I HAVE NO NO NO NO I'M RIGHT.

YEAH OKAY. NO NO. ANYWAY THOSE ARE THE RIGHT SECTIONS, THE RIGHT PAGES. AND IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER AS MUCH AS WHAT MATTERS IS THE TWO REQUESTS. THIS ONE IS TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO COLLECT ANY NECESSARY FUNDS UNDER THAT. IF THE $4 MILLION HASN'T BEEN PAID BY DECEMBER 31ST OF 2030, THAT THOSE REVENUES RECEIVED THE NEXT YEAR, THAT ANY OF THOSE ADDITIONAL REVENUES WOULD GO TOWARDS THAT $4 MILLION, I'M FAIRLY CONFIDENT THAT THAT WON'T BE NEEDED, BUT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT IT COULD BE. AND SO WE'D LIKE THAT TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE OPA. NUMBER TWO IS TO AMEND THAT SECTION ON PAGE SEVEN.

WITH THAT, PAGE SEVEN STIPULATES THAT THE AGENCY WILL COLLECT $50,000 PER YEAR. AND WHAT WE'D LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER IS THAT RATHER THAN HAVING A FLAT AMOUNT, IS THAT YOU ONLY COLLECT SUFFICIENT REVENUES TO MAKE UP FOR WHATEVER YOUR EXPENSES ARE IN A GIVEN YEAR.

AND RIGHT NOW, I'LL SHOW YOU WHAT YOUR EXPENSES HAVE BEEN, AT LEAST THIS YEAR THEY'RE

[00:15:04]

ONE OF THOSE THAT WE STARTED WITH IN THE BEGINNING WAS TO CHANGE THE 80 OVER 20 OPA SPLIT BETWEEN DEVELOPER AND AGENCY TO 90 OVER TEN. THE REASON THAT ONE DIDN'T MAKE IT HERE, THAT'S THE ONE I EXPECTED TO WORK THE BEST, BUT IT'S THE VALUES ARE NOW AT A POINT THAT EVEN A 10%, THE AGENCY WOULD COLLECT $50,000 A YEAR STILL, SO IT BECOMES IRRELEVANT WHETHER IT'S 9010 OR 8020. AND THAT'S WHY WE FEEL LIKE THE EXPENSE MODELS JUST COLLECT WHATEVER YOU'RE SPENDING TO MAINTAIN THE BALANCE THAT YOU DETERMINE WOULD BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE OPTION. THE LAST THING I WOULD POINT OUT. SO THOSE ARE THE THAT'S THE REALLY THE SUMMARY OF THE OPA CHANGES THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED. THE LAST THING I WOULD POINT OUT IS SOMETHING WE'D LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER FOR USE OF THAT $1.4 MILLION THAT SHOULD BE LEFT IN THE BANK. ONE OF THE PROJECTS THAT REMAINS TO BE DONE IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER THE SIDE OF CANAL THAT YOU SEE HERE. ON THIS SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE THE DEVELOPER HAS ALREADY BUILT OUT OF THEIR OWN FUND, THE PATHWAY ALONG SUNNYSIDE. WHEN I MET WITH THE CITY EARLY ON TO SEE WHAT POTENTIAL PROJECTS THEY HAD ON THEIR LIST, THERE WAS SOME PATHWAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SUICIDE. THERE WERE SOME CURB AND GUTTER ON THE WEST SIDE OF JACKSONVILLE JUNCTION.

AND THEN THIS PROJECT, THIS BRIDGE IS ACTUALLY IN THE DEVELOPER'S DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT THEY WILL BUILD HALF OF THE BRIDGE. AND THE REASON THAT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE IS WE THINK ABOUT THIS IS ON THE OTHER SIDE WHERE THE CAR LOTS ARE. THE MEMORY OF THE CITY. AND MY MEMORY TOO, WAS THAT THAT DEVELOPER WAS REQUIRED TO BUILD THE OTHER HALF. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THEIR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THEY ARE ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR A PATH. SO THERE'S ONLY A COMMITMENT FOR HALF OF A BRIDGE RIGHT NOW. AND YET THE OTHER THING IS THOSE CAR LOTS ARE NOW BEING INCLUDED IN THE RIVERSIDE DISTRICT. ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS FOR INCLUDING THEM WAS TO GET THE SUNNYSIDE PATHWAY BUILT AND CONNECT IT WITH THE BRIDGE. SO OUR THOUGHT IS JUST OUT OF FAIRNESS THAT IF TIF REVENUES ARE ANTICIPATED TO PAY FOR THE EASTERN HALF OF THE PATHWAY IN BRIDGE, THAT THEY WOULD ALSO BE USED TO PAY FOR THE WESTERN HALF OF THE BRIDGE THAT'S ALREADY THERE. SO WITH THAT EXTRA FUND, IF IT EXISTS AT THE END OF THE DISTRICT, JUST ASK YOU TO CONSIDER WOULD THAT BE THE HIGHEST PRIORITY

[00:20:04]

YEAH, THAT'D BE GREAT. YEAH. MR. MORGAN, LET'S. LET'S HEAR FROM. HELLO, EVERYBODY. NICE TO SEE FAMILIAR FACES TODAY. FIRST, I WANTED TO SAY HOW GRATEFUL MY PARTNERS AND I HAVE BEEN FOR THE TIF DISTRICT DOWN IN JACKSONVILLE JUNCTION. WITHOUT IT, I KNOW IT WAS KIND OF CONTROVERSIAL WHEN WE DID IT, BUT THAT WITH THAT BASE DOWN THERE, WE END UP WITH A LOT MORE SALT THAN WHAT THE THE SONOGRAM THAT WE DID. AND WE'VE BEEN WE'VE BEEN BLASTING LOUD ROCK DOWN THERE CLEAR THROUGH TO THIS DAY. WE BLASTED THE DODGE. LISTEN. AND LIKE BRAD MENTIONED, WE HAD SIX PARCELS LEFT DOWN THERE AND MOST LIKELY BE BLASTING TO VERTICAL ON ALL SIX OF THOSE PARCELS. SO IT'S USUALLY WITH OUR STORM RETENTION AND THE UTILITIES ARE COMING INTO THE BUILDINGS WHERE WE FIND IT. SO SHOWBIZ THAT THAT WAS THAT WAS HARD ON WORLD AND HARD ON DEVELOPERS. AND CERTAINLY WE WE ENCOUNTERED 17 LOSSES WITH LOSS SHOWED US WHAT WE PUT INTO PARTNERING ON THAT PROJECT. KEVIN MITCHELL ON DALLAS UNFORTUNATELY COVID WHEN KEVIN KEVIN MITCHELL RIGHT NOW. SO YOU KNOW WE BUILT THE PAD. WE HAD THE GROUNDBREAKING DOWN THERE. AND THEN TEN DAYS LATER, CRUISE SHIP WAS ALSO WAS INTERESTING TIMING. WE DID INCUR WE DID INCUR SEVEN FIGURE LOSSES. AND THEN THE DELAY KELLY HAS BEEN A REAL BLESSING TO US THAT JACKSONVILLE JUNCTION. AND MOVING FORWARD. WE WE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE CONSIDERATION THAT THESE AMENDMENTS IS WE'RE HOPING TO COME OUT OF THIS WITH OUR INITIAL. SHANE AND I ARE HOPING TO COME OUT WITH OUR INITIAL INVESTMENTS. ON THESE PROBLEMS. THE RISK TAKING DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT DEFINITELY SETBACKS IN THE HARD LOSSES TOOK THE PROFITABILITY OPPORTUNITY OUT OF IT FOR US. SO THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO SAY WAS I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE IN THE FUTURE GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICTS WHEN THERE IS BASALT, BECAUSE THAT LAND WITHOUT THIS TIF DISTRICT WAS VIRTUALLY UNDEVELOPABLE. SO IT'S A IT'S A GREAT TOOL AND WE'RE VERY GRATEFUL. AND WE APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU AND ANY CONSIDERATION YOU CAN HELP WITH THE REQUEST WE HAD TODAY. FROM ON, SHANE AND I WE WE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT. SO THANK YOU. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. IT'S A BEAUTIFUL DEVELOPMENT. YOU DID A GREAT JOB. THANK YOU. WE'RE PRETTY PROUD OF IT DOWN THERE. THANK YOU THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT BRAD. ALL RIGHT LET'S LET'S BRING UP WALK THROUGH THE SPREADSHEETS A LITTLE BIT MORE FOR US. I MEAN I I'VE BEEN THROWN, BUT THE ONE THAT SHOWS WITH NO CHANGES OR WITH THE CHANGES, LET'S START WITH THE BASE CASE. SO YEAH, IF YOU DON'T MAKE ANY CHANGES, THIS IS WHAT. SO AND THERE'S KIND OF A PREDICATE TO THIS WHICH IS. WE'VE WHAT'S HAPPENED BEFORE 2024. WE'RE REALLY GETTING THE FIRST REVENUES IN RIGHT NOW. IS THAT EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED IN 2023. PREVIOUSLY. SURE. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE VERY TOP RIGHT CELL RIGHT UNDER REMAINING BALANCE, YOU'LL SEE THAT IT'S NOT 4 MILLION. THERE HAS BEEN SOME PAYMENT MADE NOT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT. SO I MEAN LESS THAN $1 MILLION TOWARDS THAT OPA. SO WE FACTORED THAT IN. YOU'LL ALSO NOTICE THAT IF YOU WERE TO DO THE MATH STRAIGHT ACROSS ON YOUR 2024, IT WOULDN'T ADD UP TO AMOUNT TO THE DEVELOPER. THE REASON FOR THAT IS WHAT I PUT IN THOSE EVERY LINE, EXCEPT FOR THE SECOND TO LAST COLUMN, WERE PROJECTIONS. THAT FINAL NUMBER, TOTAL ANNUAL DEVELOPER REVENUE. THAT WAS THE ACTUAL. IF THE DELINQUENT TAXES HAD BEEN PAID.

SO THE MATH DOESN'T ADD UP, BUT THAT'S THE THAT'S THE PREMISE. SO I'M STARTING WITH THERE HAS BEEN SOME PAY. WE KNOW THE ACTUALS ARE TODAY. THERE'S ABOUT $2.8 MILLION LEFT ON THAT OPA. AND THEN WE GO FROM THERE ON THE REST OF THE LINES. I HAVE A QUESTION. OKAY. GO AHEAD ON THAT 80% TO DEVELOPER. AND THIS IS A CALENDAR YEAR 25 I UNDERSTAND. AND WE'RE IN FISCAL YEAR 2526. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT OUR BUDGET, OUR BUDGET TO ACTUAL 80% OPA, WE BUDGETED

[00:25:05]

CORRECT. SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE BUDGETED, WE CAN ONLY PAY OUT WHAT'S COME IN. SO OUR BUDGET MAY BE OFF. BUT. I HAVE IT'S SIGNIFICANT. SO IF IF THEY DON'T MEET WHAT THEY'RE PROJECTING THEY'RE THE MONEY COMING IN WOULD BE THEN THEY JUST WALK AWAY WITH SOMETHING.

RIGHT. CORRECT. AND THAT'S A GOOD POINT BECAUSE ONE OF OUR EARLY CONVERSATIONS WAS SHOULD SHOULD THE DEVELOPER ASK TO AMEND THE DISTRICT ANY LONGER. AND THAT CREATES SO MUCH RISK IN RESETTING THE BASE AND JUST NOT AN APPROPRIATE APPROACH. SO I'M LESS CONFIDENT IN THE NUMBERS, BUT TO GARY'S POINT THAT YEAH, IF THE MONEY DOESN'T COME IN, YOU DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO REPAY IT ANYWAYS. YEAH. OKAY. SO LET'S SEE WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO CONSIDER THIS? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE THINK ABOUT THIS SYSTEMATICALLY. IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS I HAVE ONE WAY WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO THAT. CHRIS. GO AHEAD. YEAH. I HAVE JUST A QUICK QUESTION. JUST ON THE CONCEPT OF COVERING OUR EXPENSES. I WONDERED IF IT MAYBE MAKE MORE SENSE TO JUST SET A FLAT AMOUNT. I SEE THAT WE BUDGETED ABOUT 21,000 FOR EXPENSE. I JUST WONDERED IF IT WOULD MAKE SENSE AND EASIER TO ADMINISTRATE IF WE JUST SAID, OKAY, FOR EACH YEAR WE'RE GOING TO COVER 20,000 OF EXPENSE OUT OF WHATEVER REVENUES ARE AVAILABLE, RATHER THAN JUST TRYING TO PINPOINT EXACTLY WHAT EXPENSES AND COVERING THEM. JUST A THOUGHT. YEAH. AND I THINK HE SO BRAD PUT IT AT 15,000. BUT YOU'RE IDENTIFYING THAT IN OUR BUDGET. WE HAD IT AT 21. SO WE CAN YEAH WE CAN PICK A NUMBER THERE. SO THAT'S ONE ELEMENT I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT THAT'S ONE APPROACH. I MEAN YEAH, THE THE IDEA OF EXECUTIVE OF JUST COLLECTING IDEAS CAME FROM A DISCUSSION I HAD WITH MARK HAGEDORN AND KATHY AUSTIN SEVERAL MONTHS AGO. IT WAS JUST AN IDEA AS ONE APPROACH. PICKING A LOWER NUMBER IS ANOTHER APPROACH. ALL RIGHT. SO ONE. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENT ELEMENT. ONE ELEMENT IS TO LIMIT THE THE AMOUNT THE ADMINISTRATIVE AMOUNT WE'RE TAKING TO A NUMBER 15 OR 20,000.

THAT'S ONE ELEMENT. ANOTHER ELEMENT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS THE YEAR 2031. THAT'S ANOTHER ELEMENT RIGHT. IF IT'S NOT PAID OFF BY 2030, THAT THE AGENCY WOULD COLLECT 100% OF THE REVENUES THE FOLLOWING YEAR. SO THOSE ARE THE TWO. IS THERE WHAT ELSE? WHAT OTHER ELEMENTS? THOSE ARE TWO THINGS WE CAN THINK ABOUT. YEAH. SO AS FAR AS THE OPA. AND THEN THE THIRD

[00:30:02]

WHAT RISK ARE WE LOOKING AT? YEAH THERE IS YEAH IT'S A GOOD QUESTION CHRIS. YEAH. THE RISK WHICH IS BUILT INTO THE. DEVELOPER ACCEPTS THAT RISK. AND IT'S NOW BEING SHIFTED TO US LIMITING OUR. OPERATIONS TO ACCEPT. I WOULD AGREE, IF THE DEVELOPMENT WAS NOT ALMOST FULLY DEVELOPED. RIGHT, WHICH IS AT THE FRONT END OR THE BACK, CERTAINLY THE RISK THAT THE DEVELOPER THOUGHT THAT FALL THROUGH, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT WE'RE IN THE SAME PLACE WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. YEAH. THAT'S GOOD. THIS IS A GOOD QUESTION. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION PRESENTED. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THAT? I HAVE A THOUGHT ON THAT. ANYBODY ELSE JUST I MEAN JUST OVERARCHING PREMISE HERE IS THAT THE DEVELOPERS ASKING FOR ACCELERATION OF PAYMENTS ON THIS, RIGHT. AND REALLY JUST LOOKING TO ACCELERATE THE THE INFLOWS TO THE DEVELOPER TO REIMBURSE THEM FASTER RATHER THAN ACCORDING TO THE ORIGINAL PLAN. THAT'S WHAT ALL OF THESE PROVISIONS DO. I THINK THAT'S REALLY THE QUESTION. ARE WE ARE WE, AS THE AGENCY WILLING TO ACCELERATE THE PAYMENTS AND THEN LEAVE WHATEVER BALANCE IS LEFT FOR THE AGENCY TO REINVEST IN SOMETHING ELSE? I GUESS I KIND OF SUMMARIZE, YEAH, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS MORE WHAT KIND OF PRECEDENT DOES THIS SET FOR FUTURE PROJECTS THAT MAY WISH TO HAVE THE SAME TERMS? RIGHT? I THINK MY THOUGHT ON THAT, ON BOTH OF THOSE ARE BOTH GOOD VIEWPOINTS. MY THOUGHT ON THAT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE PUT A PLAN IN PLACE AND IT ACTS NOT ONLY AS THE PLAN, BUT ALSO AS THE INCENTIVE FOR IT'S A VERY POWERFUL INCENTIVE TO GET BUILDING AND GET BUILDING FAST.

DON'T YOU COME TO US WITH THE PLAN. YOU TOLD US THIS, THIS VISION. THAT'S GREAT. THAT VISION. IF YOU GET GOING, IT WILL REALLY THAT WILL BE GREAT. AND IT WILL WORK. IF YOU DON'T GET GOING, IT'S NOT GOING TO IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK AND IT'S NOT GOING TO PENCIL OUT. AND SO THOSE INCENTIVES I THINK ARE REALLY IMPORTANT AT THE BEGINNING. AND I'M VERY HARD NOSED ABOUT THOSE INCENTIVES IN PLACE. I THINK WE'LL HEAR ABOUT THAT ON THIS NEXT ONE. BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, ON THIS ONE, THEY DID THEY DID GET MOVING. THEY DID GET MOVING IN A DIFFICULT TIME. AND THEY GOT A LOT BUILT. AND IN SPITE OF THE PLANS NOT BEING EXACTLY THE WAY THEY WANTED IT TO, THEY, THEY WERE THEY WERE MOVING. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK LIKE TERRY SAYS, BECAUSE WE'RE NOW AT THE BACK END AND NOW WE'RE WE'RE JUST PROJECTING A FEW YEARS

[00:35:01]

BUT AND THAT WILL CHANGE AS THAT PROJECT CLOSES. RIGHT. EXACTLY. I THINK IT'S A CHANGE IN THE WORDING, THOUGH. HE'S ASKING US TO CONSIDER ONLY. COVERING OUR COSTS, WHATEVER THEY END UP BEING. AND I'M SAYING, WHY DON'T WE JUST SET A FLAT FEE RIGHT? ANNUALLY. RIGHT.

SO WHAT SHOULD WHAT NUMBER DO WE WANT TO GO WITH? SEEMS LIKE EVERYBODY'S OKAY WITH THAT.

WHAT NUMBER? BRAD'S PROPOSED 15. OUR BUDGET SAID 21. BRAD, YOU GOT ANOTHER COMMENT ON THAT.

MAYBE MAYBE AN ALTERNATIVE. THAT'S WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. JUST TO CONSIDER IS IF YOU CONSIDERED A MINIMUM. WELL, I GUESS IT'S SORT OF THE SAME THING, BUT A BALANCE. YOU TAKE WHAT YOU TAKE WHAT, 15, 20, 30. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF YOU'RE OVER A BALANCE, THEN THAT THAT AMOUNT CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE NEXT 18 MONTHS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. SO YOU BUDGETED FOR 20, YOU ONLY SPENT TWO. SO NOW YOU'VE GOT A SURPLUS OVER 50,000. ROLL THAT INTO THE NEXT PAYMENT. IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S MAKING CAN DRAFT THAT. WE'LL COUNT ON MAKING BE ABLE TO DRAFT THAT AMENDMENT. SO THAT'S THAT'S A GOOD CONCEPT. SO WHAT DO WE SO IF WE HAVE THAT WHAT DO WE WANT TO WHAT DO WE WANT TO SAY? 1521 I'M JUST LOOKING FOR A CONSENSUS TO MOVE THIS ALONG. WE'RE AT 50 RIGHT NOW. SO THEY'RE BASICALLY LOOKING FOR US TO REDUCE THAT NUMBER. RIGHT. SO CUTTING IT IN HALF WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT. I WOULD JUST SAY 20 I GUESS I'M.

FEEL I WAS THINKING 20 OKAY. SO ELEMENT NUMBER ONE WE'RE OKAY ON 20. ALL RIGHT I'LL COMBINE THIS IN A MOTION IN A MINUTE. NEXT ELEMENT IS THE 2030 VERSUS 2031. I GOTTA BE HONEST, I THOUGHT IT WENT ALL THE WAY TO THE END. I DIDN'T REALIZE THIS CUT OFF AT 2030. MEGAN. IS THAT RIGHT? THAT IT CUTS OFF AT 2030, DOESN'T HAVE THE TRAILING LIKE WE HAD, LIKE WE'RE ALWAYS LOOKING AT. YEAH. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. COMMISSIONERS, ALL OF OUR OPA'S AND AGREEMENTS WITH DEVELOPERS DO TERMINATE AT THE TIME THE PLAN ITSELF TERMINATES. WE DON'T CONSIDER THE WIND UP FEES THAT ACCRUE TO THE AGENCY IN THE YEAR FOLLOWING THE TERMINATION DATE.

AS PART OF THE REIMBURSEMENT CALCULATION. AND AND WHY IS THAT? A QUICK NOTE ON THE ON THE HOLDBACK OF THE 50,000 IN THE AGREEMENT. THAT IS UNUSUAL AND ONLY APPEARS IN THE JACKSONVILLE JUNCTION. OPA. SO I AGREE THERE IS SOME FLEXIBILITY ADJUSTING THAT AMOUNT. RIGHT? YEAH. WE DID. THAT IS NOT ANYTHING THAT WE'VE HAD FOR ANYBODY ELSE TO GIVE THEM THAT LIMITATION. AND IT WAS PART OF THE FACT THAT IT WAS A SHORTER DISTRICT AND THE LIMITED REIMBURSEMENT FUND AS WELL. OKAY. SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT WOULD MESS US UP AT THE END, AT THE TRAILING, AT THE END TO CONTINUE TO SHARE REVENUES WITH AN OWNER FOR THAT FINAL PAYOUT YEAR? IS THAT JUST EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE? YEAH. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

COMMISSIONERS, I DO THINK THAT IN TERMS OF SETTING A PRECEDENT. KIND OF SHARING IN THAT FINAL YEAR OF REVENUE CAN BE A LITTLE BIT TRICKIER OF AN ANALYSIS. I DO THINK IT WOULD BE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE, JUST BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED WITH THIS BEING A SHORTER DURATION PLAN, NOT RUNNING THE FULL TIME, AND WITH THE, YOU KNOW, THE COVID PANDEMIC AND AND OTHER THINGS THAT HAPPENED DURING THE LIFE OF THIS PLAN THAT CAUSED SOME DELAYS. SO FROM A PRECEDENT STANDING STANDPOINT, AND, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY BASED ON THE

[00:40:03]

AND SO TO THE EXTENT WE CAN ADVANCE THAT, YOU KNOW, MORE WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE OPA ITSELF, BY TINKERING WITH THE REDUCTION IN THE ADMIN HOLD BACK, I THINK THAT WOULD BE PREFERRED. I THINK SORT OF AS A EXTRANEOUS OR, YOU KNOW, A IF WE HAVE TO, WE CAN COME BACK TO THE NEGOTIATING TABLE AND TALK ABOUT THAT FINAL YEAR, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS GOING TO PAY OFF IN 2030. RIGHT. IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, YOU KNOW, THAT MONEY, WHEN IT COMES IN AT THE END. AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE DID THIS ONE, WE STILL HAD I DON'T THINK WE REALLY CLOSED OUT A DISTRICT YET. AND NOW WE HAVE CLOSED OUT A COUPLE THAT LAST YEAR. IT COMES IN. YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE THE ESTIMATES OF WHAT WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AND WHAT REMAINS AND WHAT CAN BE PAID BACK TO THE TAXING ENTITIES, AND IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IT MAKES IT EASIER TO BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS IN THOSE LAST MONTHS. AND IF YOU'RE PAYING IT OUT TO THE OWNERS. YEAH. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. COMMISSIONERS, I THINK IT'S MORE OF THAT WOULD BE A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT BREAK IN PRECEDENT THAT WE'VE HAD WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO WIND UP THESE DISTRICTS. AND I THINK I'M JUST SAYING I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE TO GET TO THAT ANALYSIS SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE WE CAN RELY ON REDUCING THOSE 50,000.

AND WE CAN ALSO AUTHORIZE THE PAYMENT OF REIMBURSEMENT ABOVE THE 50,000. I THINK MR. KRAMER INDICATED THAT'S IN THE 230,000 RANGE. SO I'M NOT SURE THAT WE HAVE TO CROSS THIS BRIDGE WHERE WE MAY HAVE HELD FIRM ON REIMBURSEMENT IN THAT FINAL YEAR, IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.

ALSO, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE FINAL PAYMENT CAN BE IN 2030, IT IS POSSIBLE WE COULD CLOSE THE DISTRICT A YEAR EARLY IN 2030 AND NOT GO TO 2031. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WE ARE KIND OF SPECULATING WHERE THAT WILL END UP. WE COULD JUST SAY LET'S LOOK AT IT IN 2030. IF IT HAS NOT ALL PAID OUT THEN WE COULD CONSIDER THAT AMENDMENT. IT'S REALLY KIND OF MOVED AT THIS POINT. AND WE CAN WAIT UNTIL WE GOT A MORE COMPLETE PICTURE. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YES. I THINK IT'S MORE FAIR TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION AT THAT TIME.

AND I THINK WITH THIS ANALYSIS AND IN USING THE FINAL YEAR FUNDS TO MAKE FINAL PAYMENTS ON OPA'S, WE MAY HAVE A PRECEDENT ON THAT. AND I'M NOT SURE WE WANT TO CHANGE THAT PRECEDENT AT THIS MOMENT. OKAY. THAT SOUNDS GOOD. SO THAT'S THE SECOND ELEMENT. NOW BRAD, LET'S COME UP AND NOW WALK US THROUGH THE MATH ON THE 235. DO IT STEP BY STEP LIKE WE'RE FIFTH GRADERS OKAY I'M GOING TO USE THIS SHEET. WELL ACTUALLY CAN WE GO BACK HERE. WELL THIS WILL THE SLIDES HAVE THE FINANCE REPORT IN OR IS THAT A. OKAY. SO MAYBE WE CAN PULL THAT UP REAL QUICK. THAT'LL BE THE STARTING POINT. YEAH THAT'S FINE. SO IF YOU WERE TO ZOOM IN ON THE TOP LINE THERE WITH THE JACKSONVILLE JUNCTION REVENUE ALLOCATION. RIGHT. RIGHT. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT RIGHT NOW THAT ACCOUNT BALANCE IS A LITTLE OVER $285,000. SO WITH THAT AS YOUR AS THE PREMISE WITH US REQUESTING THAT YOU ESSENTIALLY PAY THAT DOWN TO $50,000, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE COLLECTING ANNUALLY ANYWAYS FOR EXPENSES. SO THAT'S WHERE THE 235 COMES FROM AS YOU'RE PAYING THAT DOWN TO 50. SO NOW IF WE GO BACK TO THE POWERPOINT, SORRY, I'M GETTING A LITTLE BACK AND FORTH. WHERE THAT SHOWS UP IN THIS SPREADSHEET IS IN YEAR 2025, THE REVENUE COLLECTED 2026, YOU'LL SEE THAT THAT PAYMENT IS BIGGER THAN ALL THE OTHERS. THAT'S ACCOUNTING FOR THAT $235,000 PAYMENT. IN ADDITION TO THE REGULAR REVENUES RECEIVED FROM TAX INCREMENT FINANCING. OKAY. IF THAT. SO SO I WAS JUST CHATTING WITH MATT THAT IF YOU ADJUSTED AS YOU KIND OF TALKED ABOUT, DOWN TO A $20,000 IN ADMIN AND

[00:45:07]

COMMISSIONERS, THIS ONE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN MOST OF THE OTHER REVENUE ALLOCATION AREAS. AND IT REALLY STEMS FROM THE POLICY THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE TIME, WHICH WAS GET IN AND GET OUT QUICKLY. AND SO, YOU KNOW, RECOGNIZING THERE HAS TO BE A CERTAIN LEVEL OF SPECIFICITY IN THE PLAN. AND I HAVEN'T LOOKED IN A WHILE, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT THERE REALLY WERE ANY CITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS THAT WERE CONTEMPLATED AS PART OF THIS PLAN. IT TRULY WAS A GET IN AND GET OUT. SO THE REALITY IS, IS IF THE OPA IS PAID OFF, THERE IS AN

[00:50:01]

SO WELL, IT'S NOT REQUIRED. BUT YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, PROJECTS TO SPEND YOUR MONEY ON.

AND WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE SPECIFICITY OF THE PLAN TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE WERE CONTEMPLATED AND STILL THE LATEST DATE YOU'D BE ABLE TO KEEP IT OPEN IS 2031. IT WOULD CLOSE THAT YEAR. SO REQUIRED TO CLOSE IT OUT. WE COULD CONTINUE TO PROJECT. WE COULD KEEP IT OPEN AS PART OF THE REASON WE'RE CONTINUING TO COLLECT. RIGHT FOR THAT DISTRICT. YEAH OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE THREE ELEMENTS. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION WHICH WE GO WITH THAT. IT'S QUITE A TRIED TO BREAK IT OUT. WE DO ONE MOTION WITH ALL THREE. IS THERE A CONSENSUS ENOUGH TO TO. I THINK BASED ON THE ADVICE FROM OUR LEGAL COUNSEL THAT I WOULD PROPOSE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH PAYING OUT THE 235,000 FROM OUR RESERVES AND LIMITING THE ANNUAL REIMBURSEMENT IFRA OF 20,000, BUT NOT CONSIDER THE THIRD ITEM, WHICH WAS IN HER MIND, MAYBE SETTING A WRONG PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE THAT WAS PAYING OUT MONEY IN THE FINAL YEAR. OKAY, SO THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTING THE TWO PROPOSALS, BUT NOT THE THIRD. OKAY. THAT'S YOUR MOTION. YES. OKAY. I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY. THERE'S BEEN MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION. OKAY. LET'S HAVE LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE ON THAT MOTION TERRY GAZDIK. YES. CHRISTOPHER HARVEY. YES. CHRIS ALKOHOLI. YES. LEE RADFORD. YES. FRED THOMPSON. YES. CARL. CASPERSEN. YES. MOTION PASSES.

VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE APPRECIATE. THANKS FOR ALL YOUR GOOD WORK, BRAD. THANKS FOR YOUR GOOD ANALYSIS. THOSE ARE GOOD QUESTIONS, AND WE APPRECIATE ALL THE GOOD THINGS THE DEVELOPER HAS DONE. AND IT IS IT IS BEAUTIFUL DEVELOPMENT AND WE WANT TO KEEP WORKING WITH YOU ON CLOSING IT OUT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE EVERYBODY. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE

[6. ACTION ITEM: Consider Resolution No. 2025-12 Approving the Memorandum of Understanding for a Proposed New Urban Renewal District (Skyline and Broadway)]

AND AND YEAH, THIS IS JUST THE MOU FOR THAT. AND THEY ARE HERE TO TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THAT YOU MAY HAVE AS A GROUP. RIGHT. VERY GOOD. LET'S SEE WHO WANTS TO REPRESENT THE DEVELOPER TODAY. GOT ALL OF YOU. IT'S GREAT TO HAVE ALL OF YOU. MR. CHAIR MEMBERS, SINCE OUR LAST MEETING WITH YOU ON THIS PROPOSAL, WE'VE SPENT THE LAST EIGHT WEEKS NOW IN ENGINEERING AND DESIGN FOR THIS PROJECT, BEGINNING A PROCESS TO FURTHER OUR EFFORTS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE WELL INFORMED AND ALLOW YOU TO BE WELL INFORMED IN THE PROCESS. EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING. WE'VE RUN A PARALLEL PATH WITH WORKING WITH THE CITY ITSELF TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE ZONING REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT. AS A PART OF THAT PROCESS. I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING HERE IS THE VISION ABOUT THE FUTURE. SKYLINE AND BROADWAY IS REALLY A GATEWAY GOING INTO THE WESTERN PART OF THE COMMUNITY. IT'S BEEN AN AREA THAT'S BEEN SOMEWHAT UNDERSERVED, IF YOU WILL, TO THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA. WE'RE LITERALLY THREE MINUTES FROM SKYLINE HIGH SCHOOL, WHICH HAS A DAYTIME WORKFORCE POPULATION, WITH THE STUDENTS AND AND THE

[00:55:06]

ANY QUESTIONS? WE'VE GOT THE RESOLUTION HERE AND THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.

THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ALSO HAS A MAP ON THE BACK OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. IT SEEMS LIKE THE LAST MEETING, WE WERE UNCLEAR ON WHO WE WERE ACTUALLY ENGAGING WITH. AND BECAUSE THE PROPERTY WAS FOR SALE AND THE IT WAS BLANK ON THE MOU, AND I STILL DON'T SEE WHO THAT IS ON OUR MOU. SO I'M, I THINK THAT WAS OUR MAJOR CONCERN WAS IF IT'S CHANGING HANDS WHO WE COULDN'T FIND THE NEW PROPERTY OWNER, THAT TYPE OF THING. THE PROPERTY OWNER WILL CONTINUE TO BE THE KINGSTON FAMILY. I THINK WHEN WE WERE HERE THE LAST TIME WE DISCUSSED THAT, THERE WAS FIVE DIFFERENT PARCELS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT AND THAT DIFFERENT FAMILY MEMBERS, ALL OF THE KINGSTON FAMILY OWNED PARCELS. INDIVIDUALLY. OUR PROPOSAL DOES CONSIDER THE OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE ONE SINGLE ENTITY STILL OWNED BY THE KINGSTON FAMILY, BUT TAKING IT FROM FIVE DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE FAMILY TO A SINGLE ENTITY, WHERE THOSE INDIVIDUALS MAY BECOME MEMBERS BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, PRETTY COMMON TO FORM IN A DEVELOPMENT INDIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OR SOME FORM OF PARTNERSHIP TO DO THAT. SO HOW'S THAT BEEN SET UP? ARE WE DOING AN MOU WITH FIVE PEOPLE? NO, THE MOU WILL BE, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, KINGSTON PROPERTIES LP. YEAH, WE'RE JUST GOING TO DO IT IN A SINGLE ENTITY. AND I BELIEVE WE SHARED THAT INFORMATION IN A COMMUNICATION WAY. YES. AND THAT'S CORRECT. AND WE GOT IT TO MACON AS WELL. YES. YEAH. SO THE MOU NOW IS WITH KINGSTON PROPERTIES LP AND WHICH IS FINANCIALLY SOLVENT ABLE TO PAY THIS THE AMOUNTS AND IS DOES IT OWN ONE OF THE PARCELS AT LEAST.

DO WE KNOW ALL OF THEM. IT'S A PARENT COMPANY OF ALL OF THEM. SO IT'S IT'S COMPTROLLER OF ALL THE ALL THE PARCELS OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE SOME FINANCIAL INTEREST IN IT.

THAT'S GOOD. OKAY. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION CHRIS OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD.

SO ANY DISCUSSION OF THIS MOU MEGAN, YOU WANT TO JUST GIVE US A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE MOU SAYS. IT LOOKS LIKE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. COMMISSIONERS, THIS MOU ACTUALLY IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN ONES YOU HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST. AND IT ONLY HAS TO DO WITH HOW FUNDS ARE PAID BY THE DEVELOPER TO THE CITY. SO I JUST WANTED TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO PARAGRAPHS.

SIX AND SEVEN. AND THIS THIS REALLY IS WITH REGARD TO FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE GOTTEN FROM ACCOUNTING. AND THE CHALLENGE WITH THE TIMING AND REPORTING OF WHEN CERTAIN PAYMENTS ARE DUE UNDER THE MOU. AND SO AS PART OF THIS MOU, IT'S IT'S PAYMENT UP FRONT IN FULL. SO

[01:00:02]

OKAY. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S THE MOU. ANY DISCUSSION OF MOU. ARE YOU READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE RESOLUTION OKAY MEGAN, CAN YOU READ THE RESOLUTION 2025 DASH 12 BY TITLE? SURE. RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025, DASH 12 BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, ALSO KNOWN AS IDAHO FALLS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, APPROVING THAT CERTAIN MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE IDAHO FALLS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND KINGSTON PROPERTIES, LP, RELATED TO THE PROPOSED BROADWAY AND SKYLINE URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT, DIRECTING THE CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR TO EXECUTE AND ATTEST THAT AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THE AGREEMENT. AUTHORIZE ANY TECHNICAL CHANGES SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT.

RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025, THAT'S 12 HAS BEEN READ. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THAT RESOLUTION. SO MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED. NAY.

ALL RIGHT. THAT MOTION PASSES. SO WE'LL GET MOVING FORWARD ON THAT MEMORANDUM OF

[7. ACTION ITEM: Approval of Task Order #13 Authorizing Brad Cramer to prepare the Eligibility Report for the Proposed New Revenue Allocation Area (Skyline and Broadway)]

[8. ACTION ITEM: Consider Resolution No. 2025-15 Approving the Urban Renewal Plan for Riverwalk Urban Renewal Project]

I LEFT ALL OF THE SLIDES IN THE RECORD, BUT I'M ONLY GOING TO TOUCH ON THREE REAL QUICK. I DID GO BACK AND TALK WITH THE DEVELOPER TO REVISE THE OR TO GET BETTER NUMBERS ON THE ROCK BLASTING. THAT SEEMED TO BE THE BIGGEST CONCERN. SO THEY THEY DID THAT. SO I'M GOING TO SKIP TO HOW THESE ADJUSTED. SO SITE ONE, WHICH IS THE HOTEL, I HAD PROJECTED THAT AT $2 MILLION, THAT WAS BASED ON SOME NUMBERS FROM ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT. IN A CLOSER LOOK IT'S PROBABLY CLOSER TO 800,000, WHICH IS A BIG DROP SITE TWO I HAD AT 1 MILLION. IT'S NOW DOWN TO 622.

SITE THREE IS A BIG ONE. THIS IS THE ONE BY CULVERS BIG PILE OF ROCK STILL. SO THAT ONE WENT UP A MILLION AND A HALF DOLLARS. SO IN TOTAL IT STILL WENT DOWN ABOUT 83 $84,000 FROM WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROJECTED. THE BIGGER ISSUE IS THAT I HAD FOUND AN ERROR IN MY SPREADSHEET. SO I'M GOING TO SKIP TO THAT SLIDE. SO THE SPREADSHEET ASSUMES 75% REVENUE.

WHAT I HAD INADVERTENTLY DONE IS HAD THE INITIAL REVENUES FROM THE HOTEL SITE COMING IN A YEAR OR TWO LATE. SO WITH THE ANTICIPATION OF THIS HOTEL BEING COMPLETED IN 2027, I HAD REVENUES IN STARTING IN 2030 RATHER THAN 29. SO THAT'S MY ERROR. NOW, BETWEEN THOSE TWO

[01:05:02]

AND SO IF I LOOK AT A MORE MODERATE REVENUE CASH FLOW, THIS DOES GET PAID OFF IN 2045.

SO IT IS ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE. BUT JUST JUST BARELY. SO THOSE ARE THE THOSE ARE THE CORRECTIONS THAT OR I SHOULD SAY THE ADJUSTMENTS WE MADE FROM LAST MONTH. THE PROJECT IS IS FEASIBLE. IF I WOULD SAY KIND OF TO YOUR POINT EARLIER, IF THE DEVELOPER GETS IN AND BUILDS QUICKLY AND GETS GOING RIGHT AWAY, THIS SHOULD PAY OFF. IN THE 20TH YEAR OF THE DISTRICT. AND BRAD, IF IF ALL THE IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE RIGHT, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE READY TO GO WITH THE HOTEL I DON'T KNOW. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE STATUS OF THE HOTEL IS? THEY ARE, I BELIEVE THEY SUBMITTED. THEY'VE SUBMITTED SOMETHING TO SAY. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A SITE PLAN OR NOT, BUT THEY'RE ANTICIPATING STARTING IN THE SPRING IS WHAT THEY'VE TOLD ME. OKAY, SO YOU DIDN'T HAVE I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE A SEPARATE ANALYSIS HERE, BUT IF IT'S JUST THE HOTEL THAT GOES BUT THAT 800,000, ARE WE PRETTY SAFE? THAT'S GOING TO PAY PAY OUT. FINE. 800,000. SURE. BECAUSE THE HOTEL IS BY FAR THE ECONOMIC DRIVER OF THIS DISTRICT WITH ITS VALUE, BECAUSE THE SITE THREE. THE MESSY ONE. YEAH. THAT'S ALL THAT'S PRETTY. I IMAGINE THAT'S GOT TO BE SOMEWHAT SPECULATIVE ANYWAY OF WHAT'S GOING TO WANT TO GO ON THERE. YEAH. THEY THEY HAVE SOME CONCEPT DRAWINGS FOR THE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS RETAIL OFFICE ON THE MAIN RESIDENTIAL ABOVE, AND THERE ARE SOME ROUGH COSTS FOR THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S, THAT'S OKAY. BUT YEAH, THE. TODAY'S COST, THEY'RE ESTIMATING ABOUT A $10 MILLION VALUE. BUT THAT HOTEL IS STILL AT LEAST HALF OF WHAT'S DRIVING THIS ON THE MAP. WHAT IS SITE TWO AND WHERE IS. SURE. SO THIS IS THIS IS TILTED BUT SITE TWO IS AT THE END OF THE CUL DE SAC. THAT SITE, THAT SITE TO SITE THREE IS OVER HERE BY CULVERS. SITE ONE IS THE HOTEL. THE OTHER THING THEY MENTIONED IS THAT ONE OF THE SLOWDOWNS IN THE HOTELS, THE HOTEL WASN'T ORIGINALLY GOING TO COVER THIS, THIS SOUTHERNMOST SITE, BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BUILD A SLIGHTLY BIGGER HOTEL, WHICH WILL REQUIRE A SLIGHTLY BIGGER PARKING LOT. SO THAT ENTIRE SECTION WILL BE TAKEN UP IN THE INITIAL PHASE, RATHER THAN HAVING A REMAINDER LOT WITH THE UNKNOWN PLAN. OKAY, SO IT LOOKS LIKE WHAT WE'RE REALLY DOING, WE'RE SETTING UP A PLAN PRETTY MUCH WILL PAY OFF WITH JUST THE IMMEDIATE HOTEL THAT WE HAVE WITH THE BLASTING FOR ITS FOUNDATION AT 75%, AT 75%. AND THEN WE'RE DANGLING OUT THIS CARROT THAT IF THEY CAN GET GOING REALLY FAST ON SITE THREE, THEY COULD MAYBE GET THOSE COSTS COVERED TO CORRECT. YEAH, I HAVE IF I GO BACK TO THIS, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THOSE OTHER PROJECTS HIT THE REVENUE STREAM IN 2034. AND THEN IN. I'M TRYING TO IDENTIFY THE LAST ONE THERE. I FORGOT. YEAH 2034 AND.

I FORGOT THE LAST ONE I HAVE TO REPORT. BUT. THEY DO HIT FAIRLY. OH 2032 I'M SORRY, 2032 AND 2034 IS WHEN I'M ANTICIPATING THOSE HITTING REVENUE STREAMS. SO THEY DO HAVE TO GET GOING HERE WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS IF THEY WANT TO PAY OFF. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SOUNDS GOOD.

ANY ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE. SO BOTH MR. CHAIR FIVE. MEGAN. YEAH. MEGAN. JUST A SECOND.

CHRIS. GO AHEAD AND MAKE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. COMMISSIONERS, I DID WANT TO POINT OUT, THOUGH, THAT AS WE'RE REVIEWING THIS SECTION 104, THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE PLAN WILL NEED TO BE UPDATED TO REFLECT SOME OF THESE MINOR CHANGES IN VALUE. THOSE CORRECTIONS WEREN'T MADE BEFORE THE PACKET POSTED. SO, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY WHEN YOU CONSIDER IF YOU COULD CONSIDER THOSE CHANGES AS WELL. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT CHRIS I'M SORRY. YEAH. JUST QUESTION. SO BOTH 75% AND 80% OKAY ARE INCLUDED IN THIS PACKET. SO ARE WE SUPPOSED TO SAY ONE NOT THE

[01:10:05]

RESOLUTION NUMBER 2015 OR 20 2515 BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, ALSO KNOWN AS THE IDAHO FALLS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, RECOMMENDING AND ADOPTING THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE RIVERWALK URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT, WHICH PLAN INCLUDES REVENUE ALLOCATION FINANCING PROVISIONS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS. AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, OR ADMINISTRATOR IN THE SECRETARY OF THE AGENCY TO MAKE CERTAIN TECHNICAL CHANGES. AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, OR ADMINISTRATOR TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION PROVIDING FOR THIS RESOLUTION TO BE EFFECTIVE UPON ITS PASSAGE AND APPROVAL, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE 2025 DASH 15? SO MOVED.

IS THERE A SECOND SECOND WITH THE CHANGES MOTION? YEAH, THE MOTION IS WITH THE CHANGES WE DISCUSSED. YES. WITH THAT THAT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE AYE.

[9. DISCUSSION ITEM: RAI and Legislative Update]

[10. Next Meeting: November 20, 2025]